How can we trust a book that advises against argumentation when its own author admits he was 'mischievous, talkative, cynical, and critical' and 'prone to argumentation'?

The author's admission of his past self in Chapter 2 is meant to illustrate his own transformation, not to undermine the book's credibility. He describes his former self as having a 'logic-driven mind' and being 'proud of his own wisdom' precisely to show the state he was in before understanding the Satguru's greatness. The advice against argumentation comes directly from Sai Baba, who warns that it is a sign of 'ignorance and Maya.' By including this self-critical description, the author, Hemadpant, is demonstrating that he has moved past his old ways by surrendering his ego, as Baba instructed. The book is presented as the product of this transformation, written not by the cynical man he was, but by the devotee he became.